In Scientific American, October 2006, Michael Shermer wrote a column "Darwin on the Right", in which he outlined why it is that Christians should accept evolution (taken from a chapter of his book Why Darwin Matters). Subsequently he received a number of Letters to the Editor about this column, which he reproduced in the eSkeptic newsletter. Some of them really cry out for rebuttal. I am sure that this is only a selection of the letters he has received - I'd be very surprised if he doesn't get a couple of hundred badly written, misspelt, ALLCAPS emails and letters every week. Since Mr Shermer reproduced only the letters with no comment, I have decided to make my own comments on a few of them here. Why? To relieve boredom. For something to do. Because I thought it mightbe fun.

Mind you, many of the objections might be answered by the objector simply reading the book. And I suggest that people actually do so. It's a good book.

I omit the first letter, because I really have nothing to add to it. Check the website archives for that letter. On with the subsequent ones:

Shermer my friend. There is no proof for evolution what so ever. I recommend that you have a talk with Mr. Kent Hovind and get some real facts. Don't let this evolution thing get you down. Evolution is the cause of many many deaths. Rather receive the free gift of salvation and get saved, the end times are near and people need to know about Jesus.

- Hannes Malan Danie

This one needs little in the way of rebuttal. It would be difficult for Mr Shermer to have a talk with Mr Hovind, since Mr Hovind is in jail for refusing to pay his taxes. He is a liar and a cheat, and yet commands the respect of millions of conservative Christians in America who really ought to know better. There is proof for evolution, and it is easy to find, if you've a mind to find it. As the saying goes, there is none so blind as those that will not see. Tack onto that the traditional evangelical plea to "accept Jesus" and to "be saved", and you find very little of substance. I suppose that this is probably only one of a plethora of similar letters that Shermer receives every day.

I read your article in Scientific American about "Darwin on the Right", and thought it kind of dangerous. The essential divide is, I think, between the Galileo's "it's true because I can prove it" and the Pope's "It's true because I say it is." The authoritarian right will always want to be right because they say they are, and working out ways their truths can indeed be true just to keep them happy is not, I think, the road to travel. Should we, at the discovery of each new truth, work out how the Pope's guys can come to accept it not because you can prove it, but because you can figure out a way to make them feel comfortable with it?

This guy makes a good point. Evolution is not true because we say it's true. Evolution is true because it is really, actually true, and while technically speaking we can't "prove" it, there is a vast amount of evidence which supports it. To continue:

(cont...) I guess your article was meant to be satirical, and it was funny, but at the same time it addresses a dark sadness about science in America in particular. Science is held in check by religious zealots. Every time a good scientist spends time thinking about how to argue the case with these morons, it's precious time that isn't spent thinking about science. Religious people skew the thinking of scientists, which is a shame, because the real truth about everything is far more beautiful and fascinating than anything religion has to offer, and the "people of faith" stand in the way of the rest of humanity's discovery of it. I really don't think pandering to their needs and shoring up their faith is going to fix that. We really need to bring everyone to the "It is true because I can prove it" side of things.

- Sam

The critical phrase here is "Every time a good scientist spends time thinking about how to argue the case with these morons, it's precious time that isn't spent thinking about science."

Scientists should not have to worry about "these morons", no. Unfortunately, the morons happen to have a lot of political power, and are capable of undermining good science education in the richest industrial democracy in the world. At the risk of engaging in a slippery-slope argument, what would happen if the creationists and ID supporters did succeed in overturning evolution education in the US? It would be worse than Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union, which accounted for millions of deaths by starvation. In this case however, it would be deaths by plague.

Americans, knowing that evolution does not happen, would not be able to cope with the myriad of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which routinely appear in hospitals all over the world. Their reliance on the efficacy of prayer (adequately demonstrated by numerous studies) would mean that thousands, if not millions, would die as a result of disease that would be readily treatable if only the truth of the evolution of bacteria were accepted.

Michael Shermer fails to mention one major tenet of conservative Christians that cannot be reconciled with evolution: the belief in a soul and the afterlife. In the evolution of humans, where is a Christian to draw the line on which hominid had a soul and which didn't? Perhaps the soul has evolved along with the body. Such an idea would dovetail nicely with reincarnation but not with the all or nothing, saved and unsaved doctrine of conservative Christians. They have no room for Neanderthal souls that are sent to a Neanderthal heaven and a Neanderthal hell. There is a tiny chance that the conflict between Christianity and evolution may be put to a real-life test. If surviving members of Homo floresiensis are found on an isolated Indonesian island, will evangelical Christians send missionaries to convert them? Or will they dismiss them as soulless beings?

- Robert Urbanek, Vacaville, CA

Well, for science to explain a "soul", you've first got to demonstrate that one actually exists. Since this has not happened in hundreds of years (despite attempts), then science does not need to concern itself with this matter. It is for theology, not for science, to decide this matter. Since evolution is science and not theology, it doesn't need to worry about whether it can explain a soul.

This kind of goes against what Shermer was arguing, and I feel that it is a good counterexample to his thesis - that evolution makes for good theology. For evolution to be theologically acceptable, it should either explain theological concepts or state clearly what it doesn't explain. In the case of the first example, some scientists and philosophers (Daniel Dennett comes to mind) are making strides in explaining, in evolutionary terms, the origin of religious thought and behaviour. In the case of the second, I believe that evolution is already very clear on what it can and cannot explain.

As an evangelical Christian with a biology background, I appreciate and agree with most of Michael Shermer's article on why Christians should stop opposing evolution. However, he missed what is in my experience the main reason so many Christians hold so strongly to creationism. This is the belief that if we throw out the literal Creation account, then we are opening the door to throwing out the very basis of Christianity, the physical and historical resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. As long as the two are linked, conservative Christians can never accept evolution. Only by decoupling the two issues can Christians accept evolution. Fortunately, this has already happened once in Christian history, when the Protestants of the Reformation dropped the belief in the literal transformation of the Eucharist in the Mass. Once they realized that they could rationally take the Eucharist passages non-literally and still take the Resurrection literally, they followed the physical evidence and never looked back. Conservative Christians will not accept evolution until they make the same intellectual leap. How long that will take, only God knows.

- Blake Adams San Antonio, TX

This is an old argument. But it is invalid, because even conservative Christians do not accept many parts of the Bible. Certain of the more odious parts of Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Numbers are routinely ignored by all Christians, conservative and liberal alike. It is virtually impossible to maintain a belief in the literal truth of the whole Bible in today's society, because doing so will get you imprisoned. No, that's not what happened to Mr Hovind.

As one who has carried the flag for Darwinism in the conservative community, I greatly appreciated Michael Shermer's trenchant arguments. As surveys have shown, each political party has its own taste in pseudoscience: Republicans for creationism, Democrats for "New Age" beliefs like astrology and reincarnation. Shermer certainly makes the case that evolution is both good science and good theology. However, he merely assumes without proving that belief in evolution is socially beneficial. Consider that 19th century anti-Semites wanted to convert Jews to Christianity; while 20th century anti-Semites wanted to convert Jews to fertilizer. Clearly, something happened in between, and that something may have been Darwinism.

- Taras Wolansky, Kerhonkson, NY

No, Darwinism did not cause Nazism. This is a tired old canard based on the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy. Otherwise I pretty much agree with what Taras has said here.

As an evangelical Christian engineer and longtime reader of Scientific American I find Michael Shermer quite thoughtful in his columns when on occasion he writes of science and faith. I feel like he is a skeptic that would be a pleasure to speak with. In "Darwin on the Right," (SA Oct 06) he extends his hand much further than he has done in the past. I agree it does not make any difference whether God created the universe 10,000,000,000 years ago or 10,000 years ago. The magnificence of the creation is truly a witness to his glory (Ps 19:1) regardless of when it began. Science is one way I believe God directs our attention toward and stirs our curiosity about His creation. By way of example, for God to have begun our physical universe as theorized by the big bang theory is precisely how I see God doing it. My hats off to the latest Nobel Prize winners in physics for further scientific support for this theory. The most significant point at which science and faith meet is to answer the question:

Did Jesus Christ actually die and then defeat death by his resurrection? If the answer is no then we Christians are fools. Of course as a Christian I believe the answer is yes. As the answer is yes among many things it gives me a passion for science. I think we can all at least agree that for current readers we will know the answer within 100 years.

- Joe Craig, Tahoka, TX.

I think that this is extremely optimistic. How does Joe think that science will ever be able to examine the truth of this proposition?

I found it astonishing that Mr. Shermer would spend his time and space to critique Christian theology in a scientific journal. Must be quite a threat. However, he fails to mention the core and most strangely attractive aspect of Christian thinking, the cross. That the Christian's God would stoop to allow himself to be crucified on a Roman cross, naked before the world and the universe to save his people, remains the baffling doctrine that alone gives Christianity any influence that it has. Darwinism with its selfish genes, survival of the fittest (read most powerful) and all its erudite explanations just does not have the appeal that the cross does. Nor does it make any sense to evolutionary thinking: the mightiest gives all for the weakest, the least fit. Amazing grace, how sweet the sound! How sweet indeed! Perhaps the universe is not so cold and indifferent as it appears. And Mr. Shermer with all his wisdom, learning and insight seems to have missed it.

- Allen E. Shepherd, MD

The idea of self-sacrifice is not unique to Christianity, despite continuous entreaties to the contrary. It is common in Hindu and Buddhist theology, and even in the Sagas of the Norse: "I know that I hung, on a wind-rocked tree, nine whole nights, with a spear wounded, and to Odin offered, myself to myself; on that tree, of which no one knows from what root it springs. Bread no one gave me, nor a horn of drink, downward I peered, to runes applied myself, wailing learnt them, then fell down thence. Potent songs nine from the famed son I learned of Bolthorn, Bestla's sire, and a draught obtained of the precious mead, drawn from Odhraerir. Then I began to bear fruit, and to know many things, to grow and well thrive: word by word I sought out words, fact by fact I sought out facts."

In these stanzas of Odin's Rune-Song from the Elder Eddas, Odin sacrifices himself on the tree Yggdrasil in order to bring knowledge (in the form of writing) to the people. No, the idea of self-sacrifice is not unique to Christianity, or even in fact to humanity. There are many examples of birds feigning injury in order to lure predators away from their vulnerable chicks, putting themselves in danger to save the next generation.

For a discussion on the evolutionary basis of altruism, one can do a lot worse than to start with the seminal book by Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene.

Now we're starting to get into some real meat:

I have been an avid reader of Scientific American for years, and was a little disappointed by the content of Michael Shermer's column in October about Christians and Evolution. And while I understand that his tongue must be firmly placed in his cheek when he writes garbage like this, placing writing of this sort in a scientific magazine seems misplaced, and likely belongs in the back under a heading of "Humour".

No, Shermer's tongue was where it was supposed to be. It was not intended humourously. Read the book.

(cont...) I would like to remind Michael that the theory of Evolution is no more than a theory, and has no REAL evidence supporting it, other than no one has come up with anything better, well, other than God, but he is not sharing his secrets.

Ah, the old "only a theory" canard. Educate yourself, dear fellow, on the scientific definition of a theory. It is not a guess, or an assumption. It is a result of careful study and analysis of data. The theory is the result of good science, the binding cord that ties together data points.

(cont...) Michael's assumptions about Christianity are insulting at best, and perhaps he should associate with a few Pastors before trying to draw conclusions about something he knows nothing about. I after all, took years of science training at university, and have a pretty good grasp of both sides of the coin, but I think Michael's theology would earn a firm "F" at any bible college. When evolution starts explaining things like cognition, consciousness, viruses, and a myriad of other things that the "Theory of Evolution" has failed to explain, I will stick to what I know.

- Jamie Farquhar, Oil Lab Technician, Finning Oil Lab Edmonton, AB, Canada

Sorry to say, Jamie, you can't possibly have a good grasp of both sides of the coin. Like many other evolution-deniers, you are assuming that those who have spend a lifetime studying the subject, such as Dawkins, know less than you do. This is not only false, it is remarkably arrogant.

Finally, as Shermer explains in the book (read it!), he approaches this subject from the point of view of an ex-Creationist. He is very familiar with evangelical Christianity, having been one himself. Lastly, I think that there may be an error in the statement that "When evolution starts explaining things ... I will stick to what I know."

First, I am quite amazed that Scientific American's fact checkers apparently didn't realize that evangelical Christians are Protestants, with few exceptions. Regarding Shermer's basic question of why don't conservative Christians accept macro-evolution: Harvard biologist Stephen J. Gould, who formulated the theory of punctuated equilibrium, stated in a PBS interview A Glorious Accident ca. 1991, by Dutch producer Wim Kayzer, "An accident is the 60 trillion contingent events that eventually led to the emergence of Homo Sapiens? There was never anything in the history of life that has had such an impact upon the earth, as the evolution of human mind." Cosmologists, geologists, etc., estimate the Earth to be 4.55 billion years old. Disregarding the roughly 700 million year Hadean period, 60 trillion events divided by 4.55 billion years (13,187) divided by 365.25 days equals 36 necessary events per day for 4.55 billion years ? just to get Homo Sapiens. And conveniently, each of these 36 new events daily just happened to occur in the right place at the right time in the right sequence. And we won't even quibble about the googleplex of "accidents" necessary to form the tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of separate ecosystems. Why don't conservative Christians accept macro-evolution? - The facts don't support evolutionists' claims. The odds would be better of getting hit by lightning at the moment you won the Powerball lottery while dying in the crash of a plane that got struck by a meteor. But then, such things don't happen every day.

- Joseph "Rick" Reinckens, Dallas, Texas

Ah, probability. Whenever an evolution-denier brings up a probability argument, you know that they have no idea what they are talking about. This particular probability calculation is based entirely upon a throwaway number used by one man in a television interview. It is not based on figures published in a scientific journal. Combine that with a total ignorance of cumulative selection and you have one great big straw man.

"Why don't conservative Christians accept macro-evolution? - The facts don't support evolutionists' claims." Well, Rick, they actually do. Like most other evolution-deniers, you just haven't seen what it is that the "evolutionists" actually claim. You have seen what the evolution-deniers claim they claim.

There follows a few letters that I will omit because I have little to add to them:

Charles Langhorn Auburn of California wrote expressing the irony of Republican and Democrat beliefs, which I don't have any comments for, being more or less unfamiliar with US politics.

John Hiss of Palo Alto, California suggested that it is hypocracy for "Genesis-believing Christians" to use technology such as computers and pharmaceuticals, when such advances are as much a product of modern science as evolution is. Again, I have very little to add.

Eric Jacobson of Studio City, self-identifying as an evangelical Christian, affirms that the main reason for Christians to accept evolution is that to reject it "...all but requires a prankster-God who litters the hillsides with false clues to the origins of life." I think that this is a very pertinent argument, and have nothing to say against it.

John C. Simpson of North Attleboro, MA berates Shermer for wasting his time trying to convince people who will determinedly resist all attempts to convince them. As I said before, there is none so blind as those who will not see. Sid Deutsch of Sarasota, Florida agreed, adding "Religion is poisonous to science. The two should be kept as far apart as possible."

Back to it:

I have been waging a one-man war with the editors/writers at Discover magazine over their slipshod, confusing and dishonest use of the word "evolution" in that publication. Unfortunately, this misuse is creeping into Scientific American. The honest version of the article's subtitle would have been: "Why Christians and conservatives should accept blind chance, accidental, purposeless, oblivionistic evolution". Of course this honest subtitle would have automatically explained why Christians won't accept evolution. It's a dead-end road that flatly contradicts the basic beliefs of Christianity and the beliefs of several other religions. Can one be a conservative Christian and a Darwinian? No. Here's why.

1. Evolution nullifies theology. If God exists and created the universe, then it is a sop and an insult to focus on the creation while ignoring (even rejecting the reality of) the Creator. If God does not exist, then theology collapses into fantasy. There is no significant middle ground.

2. Six-day young-earth Creationism turns out to be needless theology. This is simply because science itself has removed the theological threat of blind-chance naturalism, while Hebrew language scholarship allows the word "yom" to literally and properly extend to the time frames called for by Big Bang physics. Science and a corrected interpretation have given "a new lease on life" to Genesis 1.

Unfortunately Genesis is factually incorrect on a lot more points than just the six days. A lot more points. Re-interpreting a single word has not given Genesis "a new lease on life" scientifically.

(cont...) 3. Evolution cannot even address the problem of "original sin". The original sin of Adam and Eve was the desire to be like God - knowing spiritual good and spiritual evil. Apes, dolphins, elephants (i.e., the higher, intelligent animals) have little or no concept of God and an afterlife. According to Christian theology, we alone can "sin" against the Creator; we alone will exist beyond physical death.

4. 5. & 6. Evolution cannot account for the origin of any of these complex characteristics. Rocks, magma, liquids, gasses, plasmas and vacuums do not have family values, moral precepts or free-market economics. Few, if any, of the characteristics of life (from humans to microbes) exist in the non-living universe. There is no source for natural selection; no pathway to explain fundamental origins.

Why should evolution address rocks, magma, liquids, gases, plasmas or vacuums? Let alone "original sin"? The theory of gravity doesn't address germs, coffee or internal combustion engines. Geology doesn't address clouds. Psychology doesn't address metamorphic rocks. This is a spurious attempt to extend a science into areas that it clearly doesn't cover, and shouldn't. Geology accounts for rocks and magma. Chemistry addresses liquids and gases. Evolution is merely one small part of science, and cannot be extended to address the entirity of the universe. This argument is frequently used by creationists who conflate evolution with cosmology, claiming that evolution cannot address the origin of the universe. Of course it can't! Who ever said that it should? Only you.

(cont...) How would "The Skeptic" and the editors of Scientific American react to an interpretation of Genesis 1 that dovetails well with the cutting-edge of modern science? If the Hebrew literally allows "yom" to be finite epochs of time for the six days of Creation, and if a descriptive viewpoint in Genesis 1 of ground-level looking around and up (as opposed to hovering in space while looking down, as commonly assumed) eliminates the usual absurdities charged against this "ancient text", will you give it a fair hearing? You have nothing to lose but a little time and effort.

- Brian Bloedel, Onley, VA

Unfortunately, there is no interpretation of Genesis 1 that "dovetails well with the cutting-edge of modern science", unless you subscribe to an interpretation that completely ignores everything that Genesis 1 says about the origin of the world and the universe. For example, Genesis has light appearing before the sun, moon and stars. It has animals appearing before plants. It does not account for the appearance and disappearance of the dinosaurs. I could go on, but this is a subject that has been done over many times.

As a Christian who appreciates the contributions of science but does not subscribe to the theory of evolution, I feel compelled to respond to Michael Shermer's column. While Mr. Shermer is entitled to his beliefs, he should not attempt to dress up evolution to make it appear compatible with Biblical Christianity. The two are in fact based upon different paradigms, and the disparity between them cuts right to the heart of the very meaning of our existence.

Shermer is not dressing up evolution to make it appear compatible with Christianity, he is dressing up Christianity to make evolution appear comparible with it. There is a difference here. Evolution is hard, solid fact. You can't "dress up" the facts to your own purpose. Christianity is not hard, solid fact - it is entirely founded upon interpretation of a particular text. One which admits itself to a vast number of interpretations, in fact.

(cont...) Shermer mischaracterizes Creationism as a depiction of God "piecing life together out of available parts," thus reducing Him to the status of a "watch-maker." In fact, the wonder of creation is that God made everything out of nothing. Scripture tells us that, "through Him, all things were made." I am reminded of the story of an ambitious young scientist accepting God's challenge to a "man-making contest." God tells the scientist, "We'll do it like I did in the days of Adam and Eve." When the man reaches down to scoop up a piece of dirt, God admonishes him, "No, no. You have to make your own dirt!"

While this is a funny little story, it has little to do with real science. The statement that "God made everything out of nothing" has no evidence, and cannot even be examined by science to find out whether it is true or not. It is an assertion. The Bible says so, and we know that the Bible is right, because the Bible says so.

(cont...) Shermer's contentions that evolution explains original sin, family values and Christian moral precepts ignore the Fall, which was the result of human frailty and the role of evil in this world. Shermer speaks of "positive" and "negative" sides of human nature. This is a distinctly secular world view. The Bible states clearly that "there is no one righteous, not one." Thus, the Judeo-Christian worldview does not see morality as a by-product of our "evolved" nature, as Shermer suggests. It is an external framework, a "tree of life" that keeps those who hold fast to it within God's will for their lives.

Again, the Fall is an assertion of the Bible that stands on nothing but its own assertion of authority. In addition, the position of moral absolutes is impossible to maintain when you examine the difference in moral values between (say...) conservative Christians five hundred years ago and conservative Christians today, who I think might balk at burning witches to death. Morals change, and have changed so much since the time of Christ that one is forced to admit either that morals are not absolute and are a product of society, or that God is capricious and keeps changing his mind.

(cont...) The fact that these values (and, for that matter, the social behavior of some mammals) serve to protect family and community only underscores their intrinsic worth; it does not prove that the origin of these wise precepts is anything but Divine. When I watch the movie, "March of the Penguins" with my children and observe how the male emperor penguin selflessly and faithfully cares for his young through the desolate Antarctic winter, I am struck not by how much these remarkable creatures "mimic" humans, but rather by how short of God's standard I myself often fall in my role as a father.

Which is odd, because March of the Penguins is a marvellous examination of the power of evolution. Yes, I am humbled by the penguin too. But I am also humbled by the trilobite, which persisted for many millions of years more than humans have been on this planet. I am humbled by the bombardier beetle, in which evolution has come up with an ingenious method of combining two naturally occurring chemicals to produce a formidable chemical weapon. I am humbled by the stars and galaxies, which really have no place or explanation in the Bible, except that they were put there expressly for us to gaze upon.

(cont...) Yes, we could learn a thing or two from the animal kingdom, not because we both have DNA coursing through our bodies, but because they by their very nature cannot sin. Lacking in the knowledge of good and evil, they have somehow managed to avoid waging wars, fouling their habitats and generating vast inequalities of resources, which leads to my final point: to suggest that evangelical Christians ought to embrace the Social Darwinism of Adam Smith is to ask us to abandon basic tenets of Christ's teachings. Jesus was a radical who reached out to the untouchables of His society ? the leper, the blind, the paralytic and of course, women. His discipleship of the common folk and His unfailing compassion for "the least of these," offer humanity an antidote to the barbarism of so-called "natural selection." Both Adam Smith and Karl Marx would render us cogs in a machine, one controlled by an "invisible hand," the other by the forces of historical materialism. Only Christ gives us a picture of ourselves as servants of a Divine Master who has entrusted us with talents to cultivate, and who invites us to share in our Master's happiness.

Shermer concludes by cleverly quoting Proverbs 11:29, from whence Hollywood took the title of "Inherit the Wind," the movie that chronicles the famous Scopes monkey trial. I would respectfully suggest that he consider another verse from that same book, Proverbs 3:5, "Trust in the Lord with all your heart; lean not on your own understanding."

- David Finz

Again, the concept of "sin" is a theological one, and cannot be examined or interpreted by science. Again it is a case of the Bible standing only on its own authority. And since when has Adam Smith's "invisible hand" been an active, controlling entity? The "invisible hand" is simply an anthropomorphic metaphor to describe the way that the free market economy can sustain and regulate itself. Now it's been a while since I've read Smith, but my recollection is that he introduces the "invisible hand" to describe what is clearly an unguided process. Seems to me someone hasn't actually read the work he is quoting.

"...to suggest that evangelical Christians ought to embrace the Social Darwinism of Adam Smith is to ask us to abandon basic tenets of Christ's teachings." Who ever suggested that evangelical Christians ought to embrace social darwinism? A largely discredited theory, I might add. No-one ever suggested that evolution is a moral code. It is simply a description of what is. Most of society today has come about because of humanity working against the natural evolution of the species. Evolution does not dictate that we should cure the sick. We do. Evolution suggests that the sick would die, and therefore fail to propagate the genes that favour susceptibility to sickness. By helping the sick, we are actually disimproving the species, contrary to what evolution would do. This in itself is neither a good nor a bad thing. It just is.

Finally, to Proverbs. I am surprised that anyone could advocate putting aside their own intellect in favour of dogma from a centuries-old book, and yet this is exactly what the writer of the Proverbs (supposedly Solomon, the wisest man ever to have lived) is telling us to do. Don't think, don't reason, just trust what we say God says. Astounding.

Michael Shermer pleads that all Christians and conservatives should accept evolution. He should rephrase to include everyone, for paleontological evidence proves evolution is and was an on-going process with the following caveats:

1. Evolution never invented anything! As environmental conditions changed species had to modify or perish!

2. There is no evidence of a process that begat "life" (Darwin) in a prehistoric puddle (of water?) 3.4 billion years ago. Science accepts this explanation without any evidence but denies, again without evidence, that any outside agency was involved. It appears many scientists accept what is believable but reject what may have been ?outside' help but difficult to believe. That reflects poor science.

- Glenn Waterman, Bainbridge Is. WA

This statement implies that science in general, and evolution in particular, should have all the answers to all the questions right now. It doesn't. Just because that we don't have a naturalistic explanation of some phenomenon now doesn't mean that we aren't working on it, and doesn't mean that we will never come up with one in the future. This is based on a common fallacy of pseudoscience and mysticism: that unknown is synonymous with unknowable. There is a big difference.

Whether there is a God or not is unknowable. It is a conjecture that cannot be directly examined for its truth or its falsity. Whether there is a natural origin for life is unknown, in that we don't have a theory yet that explains it. The natural origin of life is something that can be examined, and is being examined, in laboratories all over the world. The Miller-Urey experiments, much-loved by evolution-deniers who do not understand it, produced organic compounds from inorganic substances. Some of those organic compounds were essential components to life (ie, life as we know it cannot exist without them). The experiments showed that some of the components of life can have a natural origin, which disproved (falsified) the idea that such components cannot have a natural origin.

Michael Shermer's understanding of evangelical Christians is limited. Although his argument that evolution comports with original sin and the Christian model of human nature is true, he misunderstands a crucial aspect of Christian theology, i.e. humankind's responsibility for its sinful nature. A fundamental belief is that humans were created good but chose to rebel against their Creator which was their original sin. This rebellion made it necessary for God to send his Son into the world to redeem them through his sacrificial death. To accept evolution, evangelicals would have to accept the fact that God is responsible for our sinful nature. That would negate the central tenant of evangelical Christianity which is that the sacrificial death of Christ was necessary to reconcile humankind with God. The fierceness with which they fight the teaching of evolution in our public schools is fueled largely by this mindset.

- James Wade, Arlington, TX

Again, sin is a concept that cannot be examined by science. Once more this is a "slippery slope" argument that accepting evolution will inevitably lead to a wholesale rejection of the Bible. Shermer's thesis, expanded on in the book (read it!) is that this is not necessarily so.

And, I might add, I fail to understand why "[t]o accept evolution, evangelicals would have to accept the fact that God is responsible for our sinful nature." But that may just be my lack of understanding of Christian theology.

Another letter omitted: Roy E Schneider, of Ft Myers, FL made an unsupported assertion that this rebuttal is almost longer than. It may not have been worth it to omit.

Mr. Shermer fails to address several ideas that creationists hold as truths, and thus merely scratches the surface of the problem in a fashion similar to the Creationists trying to explain how evolution does not make logical sense. It is because of these fundamental truths that I do not believe that evolution will ever be accepted by everyone because believing in evolution will require them to accept several concepts that even a non-religious person may find difficult to accept. In order for evolution to be accepted by everyone, I believe that the more fundamental questions will need to be resolved.

1. What is everyone's purpose? Religion's perseverance throughout history is through the religious leaders providing hope when there does not appear to be any reason for hope. A major source of hope is the belief that every human is part of the grand scheme of life in the universe, thus their life and suffering is part of their salvation. Accepting evolution involves accepting that we are a group of complex chemical reactions and our body's sole purpose is to propagate the DNA code contained within. Thus, while not considered humane, our species is successful by the majority of the population, not by an individual.

Science in general, and evolution in particular, can not and should not answer philosophical questions about "purpose". It is plainly evident from atheists and existentialists like me that it is possible to live and enjoy life without the "hope" that religion provides. As such, this argument is completely spurious.

(cont...) 2. What makes human's existence more unique than other species? Evolution is a process where random changes in the current state of "life" are filtered and balanced by selection processes. Humans, in our current form, had the same chance of occurring as any other complex species. Our lineage gained the ability to modify our environment to overcome our inability to cope with nature and through luck, we were able to move to another portion of the earth where we proliferated. While we are to the best of our knowledge the only sentient species, another sentient species could have occurred or we may not have occurred at all, thus our chances of occurring are no more unique than any other species.

Heh. "More unique". Like "more dead" or "more pregnant". Humans are not "more unique" than other species. Humans are just animals - collections of chemicals if you like. This does not mean that there is no point to life, and it does not mean that atheists and existentialists like myself are consumed with despair at knowing this. Consciousness has an evolutionary explanation (although we may not know what it is yet - see my above distinction between "unknown" and "unknowable"), and while it does make us somewhat "special" in that we can affect our environment in ways that other species can't, it does not mean that we are unique.

It is pretty well established that consciousness is not a black and white affair. It is a graduated scale - we have more consciousness than dolphins, which have more consciousness than dogs, which have more consciousness than iguanas, which have more consciousness than worms. There is nothing at all "unique" about consciousness in itself, only the degree to which we can change our environment.

(cont...) 3. Are humans the intended design? While we have the ability to imagine concepts that were never experienced, and thus can develop technologies and teach ideas for our children, our construction is far from perfect. An often cited example is the less than ideal construction of our eye, common to our lineage, resulting in a blind spot that our mind fills in. Another example is the limited range of color that our lineage is capable of seeing. Evolution does not work towards the ideal design but works from the previous design, so we just got lucky that we gained additional strengths that allowed us to become successful. Most of our abilities are shared with other species, just not in this particular combination.

"Intended design" is a teleological concept that again has no place in science. Evolution simply adapts existing... OK I'll say it... designs. There is no "intention" involved, only survival.

(cont...) 4. Is the Bible is correct? Since the Bible "documents" the history of the universe and our creation, accepting that creation, or its new age cousin intelligent design, is not correct means accepting that there are errors in the Bible. If Genesis is incorrect, then other portions of the Bible may be incorrect. If there is nothing available that can be used to prove the accuracy of the rest of the information in the Bible then the Bible becomes nothing more than a historical fiction. We still live in societies full of closed minds and it may take finding sentient life outside of our world to prove that our existence is not unique. Until then, it is easer to believe an idea that provides reasons for hope than to believe in an idea that defines our insignificance. Unlike Creationists, who tend to balk at criticism of their theory, we need to welcome the arguments about evolution because it is through questioning and testing that our understanding of the universe becomes accurate.

- William C. Wheeler Midlothian, VA

Again with the slippery slope. Even conservative Christians acknowledge that there are some parts of the Bible that they don't accept. See above.

Michael Shermer claims that evolution "should be embraced" by Christians and conservatives. The first premise of evolution is that there is no God.

Hang on. No. Anyone who claims that this is a premise of evolution, let alone the first premise, doesn't understand what evolution is all about. Evolution does not start from the idea that there is no God. God doesn't even come into the theory. It is a theory without God, to be sure - God is unneccessary in the explanation of life - but the absence of God is no more a starting point for evolution than it is for gravity.

(cont...) How then can a Christian, who believes there is a God, then embrace evolution? Shermer claims that "Calling God a watchmaker is belittling", but comparing life's complexity to a watch's is even more belittling. Shermer erroneously asserts that Christians have delimited God to "being a garage tinkerer piecing together life out of available parts". He forgets that God created all things out of nothing, not out of "available parts". To call God "just a genetic engineer slightly more advanced than we are." is even more baffling: consider that scientists have not yet cloned any human beings successfully.

See, this is one of the main reasons why I cannot understand why people can accept Intelligent Design. The fundamental premise of Intelligent Design is that we can detect design - we can tell when something is designed, and when it isn't. The only problem is that as Mr Lee has pointed out, the only examples that we have of design are examples of human design, which are worlds away from the kind of "design" we see in the natural world. It's like the difference between a child's scribble and the Sistine Chapel. You just can't say that something in nature looks designed because it resembles something that humans have designed - because it doesn't!

(cont...) Shermer then goes on to say that evolution "accounts for specific Christian precepts" and lists truth-telling and marital fidelity as examples. I find it queer that primates somehow learned how to "get married". It's even more interesting to note that primates no longer get married today.

Why should that be a problem? Surely Mr Lee has heard of examples of the primates known as humans getting married. And what's more, monogamy is common in the animal world, even if the specific rituals that we humans have developed around it are not.

(cont...) Also, why would a primate think that adultery violates trust? How did they learn that adultery violates trust? It surely must have been a taught or learned reaction.

To say that adultery violates trust is a tautology. Adultery is a violation of trust - it doesn't cause a violation of trust. It is the violation of trust that animals react to, and that leads to rules against adultery. Not the other way around.

(cont...) It is easier to believe that God placed a conscience into Man to know what is right and wrong. The next claim that "evolution explains conservative free-market economics" is absurd. I find it hard to believe that ALL the ecological and biological processes and systems that are constantly and vitally in action came into being by chance. Even today's world economies have rules and systems that were created by governments. It is more logical to believe that the consequence of competition among individual organism is anarchy. Therefore, to say that God created all creation with all systems in place is in fact more logical than to claim He used evolution to create the universe. I find this article extremely biased with an anti-Christian sentiment and hope that such material will not surface again in Scientific American.

- Timothy Lee, Singapore

And the rest is just an argument from incredulity. I, myself, Mr Timothy Lee in Singapore, cannot think of a way that evolution can explain conservative free-market economics, so therefore it cannot. Read the book, Tim.

Michael Shermer does nothing but bait others and makes your magazine look unprofessional. Evolution has served some purpose in past years but as more and more evidence comes to light there is less and less that is explained by the theory, especially anomalous evidence. One prominent feature in the treatment of anomalous evidence is what we could call the double standard. All paleoanthropological evidence tends to be complex and uncertain. Practically any evidence in this field can be challenged, for if nothing else, one can always raise charges of fraud. What happens in practice is that evidence agreeing with a prevailing theory tends to be treated very leniently. Even if it has grave defects, these tend to be overlooked. In contrast, evidence that goes against an accepted theory tends to be subjected to intense critical scrutiny, and it is expected to meet very high standards of proof. Ameghino's discoveries in the Montehermosan formation - including stone tools, modified animal bones, signs of fire, and modern human skeletal remains show a human presence in Argentina more than 3 million years ago. "Lucy", A. afarensis, shows us a gorilla-like head, an upward-pointing shoulder joint indicating that the arm was used for suspensory behavior, and a hand with a powerful wrist and curved fingers, suitable for climbing. Even if one believes Lucy could have evolved into a human being, one still has to admit that her anatomical features appear to have been misrepresented for propaganda purposes. The Laetoli footprints show anatomically modern human beings walking in impressed layers of volcanic ash, dated by Garniss Curtis, using the potassium-argon method, at from 3.6 to 3.8 million years ago. Indeed, humans may not have evolved at all. Human beings may have been present on this planet, in their current form and at essentially the same level of physical advancement for millions of years. Who knows, we may have been transplanted here from other places in our galaxy. The theory of evolution is found to be wanting, has little evidence to support the wide assertions present in high school textbooks and has the scientific establishment looking like the thick-headed apes they propose as our ancestors.

- Richard J. Hauley, D.M.D., Salt Lake City, UT

One long rant about a big, elaborate strawman. Again, what this boils down to is "I have not yet seen any evidence that has convinced me that evolution is true, so therefore it isn't". Never mind that "Lucy" has hips and ankles that are well-developed for walking upright, and may actually have been of the species that created the Laetoli footprints. The theory is "found to be wanting". In your mind only, Mr Hauley, and only because you haven't seen the vast majority of the evidence which supports evolution.

It's as I always say. If there is one thing that we absolutely know about evolution beyond all doubt, it is that those who do not accept evolution do not understand it.

As a fan of Michael Shermer's column "Skeptic" since its inception, I must register unexpected disappointment with the October 2006 installment, "Darwin on the Right." Shermer writes that evolution provides a scientific foundation for Christian values and beliefs and the tenets of conservatism and so must be embraced. Since when do beliefs, religious, political, or otherwise, require a scientific foundation? If anything, they require the absence of a scientific foundation; otherwise, what's the point of belief? And where is the necessity of defending evolution to its detractors, anyway? Evolution is correct; that's enough. Why appropriate the creationists' terms to repackage it for their consumption? It comes off as desperate; it recalls creationists' own attempts to answer, point for point, evolutionary theory with references to Scripture. If people wish to doubt that the Earth revolves around the sun, that humankind arose from earlier life forms, or any other indisputable fact, let them do so. The gaps in knowledge that resulted in the rise of codified spiritual beliefs are being filled ever more quickly, an alarming prospect to true believers. To any observer of human nature, it's plain how people who fear the loss of something of immense value to them will react: by fiercely, even irrationally, protecting it. Those of us who know better know also that any attempt to convince such believers is, effectively, preaching to an empty choir loft.

- Jim Kelly, Albuquerque, NM

The "why bother" argument from above, restated. There are many good reasons to bother with trying to reconcile evolution with religion. For example, the evolution-deniers have a lot of political power, and are in a position in the United States to severely stunt the educational development of the next generation.

Jews and Christians have historically named Moses as author and compiler of the 1st five books of the Hebrew and Christian Bibles, beginning with Genesis, where the creation of the universe by God was described to have occurred in 6 days. It is believed by both Jews and Christians that Moses wrote Genesis around 2000 BCE (i.e. 2000 years Before the Common Era - at the time of the patriarchs). This was many years before the widely accepted, early 20th century's scientific theory of universal creation, which was first espoused through the calculations of Albert Einstein, Aleksandr Friedmann, and Georges Lemaitre. This, so-called, big bang theory was then quickly substantiated by:

* Hubble's telescopic discovery of the expanding universe.

* The discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB).

* Among other, significant empirical findings. ("The Evolution of the Universe"; Peebles, Schramm, Turner, Kron; Scientific American, May 1998; & Oct. 1994)

Dr. Shermer is correct that it matters little whether God created the universe in 10-thousand or 1-billion years, but, what is significant are the similarities between Genesis and the big bang theory:

1. The universe had a beginning according to the big bang and Genesis ( Genesis 1:1 - "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth")

2. God gave form to the chaos to create order.( Genesis 1:2 - "And the earth was without form, and void;") just as the big bang model used the Standard Model of elementary particle physics with the energy distribution rules of fundamental thermodynamics to describe the primordial fireball, which transformed the initial dense, hot quark-gluon soup into protons and neutrons to fuse into hydrogen and helium, creating a universe made virtually entirely of hydrogen and helium.

3. God created light on the 1st day (Genesis 1:3 - "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.") just as the primordial flash that produced what we know today as the CMB.

4. The separation between the light and darkness (Genesis 1:4 - "and God divided the light from the darkness.") Just as the CMB primal glow of light is separated from each observer due to the expansion of the universe.

Perhaps there isn't a conflict between science and religion, as Dr Shermer suggests. Perhaps both the scientific and religious accounts are correct and any perceived conflict only exists in the minds of those whose faith lies in religion rather than in the scientific method! Divine miracles, to the ancients, were (and still are, to some) natural phenomena yet to be scientifically explained. Just because people have faith in science; this doesn't mean they are without religion and vice versa. If this is the case, no conflict should exist! Without the science-religion conflict, there mightn't be such a conflict between different religions either; thus, negating the need for religious extremist's despicable random violent acts in the name of their perceived religious beliefs.

- Steven R. Lund, Laguna Hills, CA

Unfortunately while this is a nice Utopian view of the reconciliation between Genesis and science the unfortunate spanner is that Genesis is factually incorrect. These four points I think are possibly the only four points of similarity between Genesis and modern cosmology. There is nothing in Genesis about inflation, nothing about stellar nucleogenesis, nothing about gas clouds collapsing under gravity. Similarly in science there is nothing about Adam, nothing about six days and nothing about a global Flood.

Science and religion are in conflict whenever religion states something that contadicts what science claims. And whenever science states something that is in contradiction to religious dogma. Fortunately we can examine the two claims, and determine which is closer to the truth. The key is evidence. Inflationary cosmology has a lot of evidence - the observed expansion of the universe and the cosmic microwave background radiation for example. There is little in the way of evidence for the Biblical account of creation, apart from the Bible's say-so.

I would have thought that Shermer's very creative attempts to reconcile evolution with Christianity would produce some better responses than these. None of these letters show the same imagination as Shermer's original book, and in particular the chapter that was excerpted in Scientific American. They're all the same old story - Points Refuted A Thousand Times.

It seems that many evolution-deniers are frightened of the slippery slope - that evolution implies that the Bible is fallible, and then whence Christianity? I personally have not encountered very many evolution-deniers who were not evangelical Christians. Even those who hold to Intelligent Design for what they describe as its "scientific merits", when you press them admit to being Christians. Okay, I've had a Raelian spam a forum once. And there are those nutcases over at Harun Yahya, who apparently are Islamic. But overwhelmingly, the objections to evolution are Christian objections.

This is why Shermer feels that it is important for Christians to understand evolution as it really is, instead of what people like Kent Hovind tell them it is. Because there really is not all that much wrong with evolution from a theological standpoint (except that it flatly contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis), and there is so much actual evidence in favour of evolution that it is now considered one of the best-supported theories in modern science.

Letters reproduced from Michael Shermer's eSkeptic newsletter, Wednesday November 15th, 2006. See the website for letters that are omitted here. eSkeptic is a free, public newsletter published (almost) weekly by the Skeptics Society. Contents are Copyright ? 2006 the Skeptics Society and the authors and artists. Permission is granted to print, distribute, and post with proper citation and acknowledgment. Contact us at skepticssociety@skeptic.com.